In the case of a trader where shares are held as stock-in-trade no part of interest on borrowed funds can be disallowed u/s 14A as incurred in relation to Dividend income. The interest on borrowed funds used for trading activity is an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and the same cannot be treated as the expenditure for earning the dividend income which is incidental to the trading activity.
Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT (I.T.A. No.919/Del/2009) (ITAT Delhi)- Interest income is to be excluded from operating revenue for computing the net profit from operating activity unless such interest income has nexus with the international transaction. Under the captive service and cost plus model, if an expense has a direct link with the international transaction, the same should form part of total cost i.e. operating costs. The onus is on the taxpayer to maintain robust documentation for availing necessary economic and risk adjustments. The option of +/- 5 % is available only to the taxpayer when he is computing the ALP and not when the AO/TPO is computing the ALP
The OECD guidelines are not of binding nature and even the Proviso to Rule 10B (4) provides that any subsequent year data cannot be considered. The contemporaneous data of relevant financial year is to be used for making the comparable analysis for arriving at the ALP unless it is proved otherwise
Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Devendra Motilal Kothari v. DCIT , has held that fees for portfolio management services are not inextricably linked with the particular instance of purchase and sale of shares and hence cannot be allowed as a deduction while computing capital gains.
Lucknow Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sanjiv Gupta v. DCIT , held that Circular No. 7 of 2009 dated 22 October, 2009 withdrawing the Circular No. 23 of 1969 dated 23 July, 1969 would be effective only prospectively from 22 October, 2009. The Circulars are briefly explained in the following table.
Assessing Officer’s stand that ‘provision of computation of income under Section 11′ does not contain any provision which may entitle an assessee to claim weighted deduction for any expenses incurred’ is not acceptable as Section 11 provides that the income of the Trust is to be computed on commercial basis i.e. as per normal accounting principles. Normal Accounting Principles clearly provide for deducting depreciation to arrive at income. Income so arrived at (after deducting depreciation) is to be applied for charitable purpose.
Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Intelsat Corporation (ITA No. 5443/D/2010) (Judgment Date: 4 March 2011, Assessment Year: 2007-08) held that income received by the non-resident taxpayer from leasing of transponder capacity and bandwidth cannot be taxed as ‘royalty’ under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of Bharat Bijlee Limited v. ACIT (ITA NO. 6410/MUM/2008) (Judgment Date: 11 March 2011, Assessment Year: 2005-06) , held that where a business undertaking is transferred against issue of bonds / shares, the transaction is not a “Slump Sale” as defined under Section 2(42C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and therefore provisions of section 50B of the Act relating to computation of capital gains in case of Slump Sale are not applicable to such transfer.
Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ITO v. TCFC Finance Limited (ITA No.1299/Mum/2009) (Judgement date- 9 March 2011 Assessment Year 2004-05) held that the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) deals with amount of provision for diminution in the value of any asset and not with the value of asset which remains after diminution. Once provision is made for diminution in the value of any asset, the same has to be added for computing book profit, regardless of the fact whether or not any balance value of the asset remains after diminution.
In the case of Synergies Casting Ltd. v. DCIT it was held that exemption under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is not available to an undertaking taken over on lease. Further, the Tribunal held that in order to get the benefit of Section 10B of the Act, for the unexpired period, the taxpayer must prove that it is a successor to the predecessor company. Since the taxpayer was only a lessee it was not a successor to the lessor.
